Regardless of what you think of hunting, the law about it is very silly. For example, it forbids classic hunting, but allows hunters to use dogs to flush the animals out then eagles to kill them, which probably makes it more of a spectacle. I was therefore amused to read this story this morning in the Telegraph. Here's a quick sample.
A retired police officer has admitted twice flouting the new hunting law by allowing his terrier dog to chase and kill a mouse and a mole.
George Morrison, 51, reported himself to former colleagues but he was not prosecuted over either incident.
Mr Morrison served with Northumbria Police for 30 years before retiring as a detective inspector three months after the Government's Hunting Act came into force in February last year.
He turned himself in to the police on both occasions to demonstrate that the 2004 Hunting Act was a "ridiculous law".
Thinking about it, it is possible that the law does exactly what it was intended to do - appeases the hunting protesters while not actually stopping hunting. (If it works, it shows the hunting protesters were actually motivated by pride, not by concerns for animal welfare, but I think we knew that anyway.) The downside of that though is that it weakens the notions of the rule of law and the utility of law still further.